"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today"
Abraham Lincoln
It is small wonder people get confused over the many conversations related to sustainability, climate change and the environment. The topics themselves, identifying multiple related issues and the debates over them, get longer, and more varied with experience. Even down to the very basics of discussions over climate and weather.
And while the debates are going on there is then all the noise around who carries the responsibility for dealing with so many different elements leading to differing solutions and arguing over what is right and what is wrong. As a result, not enough is being done.
But at least most people agree - even if they don't entirely get it, that rivers and lakes are drying up, food is therefore difficult to produce to feed an endlessly growing global population, not all (any?) of it in the developed countries, and that glaciers and ice floes are melting at such an alarming rate that should it continue, many low lying areas of the world will be under water (and not drinking water at that!).
Of course, I say most people. There are still the naysayers who say this is just a normal pattern of climate change that goes around in 300 year cycles, and that therefore this century (I have heard it said but don't know if it's true, that the Indians describe this as the "Fire Century") will eventually revert to more normal climatic behaviour (whatever that is) and get cooler to positively freezing. Meantime our children and grandchildren get hotter and hotter with less and less water and lower food resources - but don't worry, they say, it'll be alright in the end, and they will sort it out!!
It is not surprising then that the recent focus brought to the matter by initially the student population in a number of cities around the world, and then by more disruptive action in places like London, has caught the attention of Governments. The downside to all of this however is that under pressure you now have Governments going over the top and making promises about emission controls and global warming targets that they probably cannot meet, and then conveniently omitting to tell anyone how these changes are going to be funded. And just as an aside, I do think the London demonstrators frankly ultimately did their cause more harm than good amongst the general public. Should have left it to the children, and if not, then the adult support should have known when to move on!
There is also another less easy matter to deal with here, and that is the pressure on everyone to stop using non-renewable sources of energy or fossil fuels. It is easy for the better off countries to do this, and demonstrators tend not to be overly specific with their slogans, but how do you expect countries like Bangladesh for example to survive if they haven't got the money or the wherewithal to use anything other than fossil fuels - or doesn't a country like that matter? I mean it's only 170million people after all, and a country more than most others likely to be really badly affected by rising water levels! There does need to be a sense of reality here.
But I come back to a fundamental question - who is going to pay for all of this? Making a noise and demonstrating is all very well - and of course the present young, who are likely to be the worst affected, cannot be expected to put their hands into pockets that are largely empty. So, who pays?
The organisation with which I have been associated for very many years is a traditional financial institution. One that is undergoing change, as it must because parts of its business are coming under threat from new "players" in the market. Is it perfect? No it isn't and it knows it, but I am unashamedly happy to note that the bank is actually doing its bit - not by paying lip service to the concept of "appearing to be" environmentally friendly, but getting everyone involved.
Of course my association with them now is principally in the Middle East, and from first hand I know just how committed the team here are - this is not for them just a job but a passion and a commitment with love - and the good thing is they take everyone along with them, and I am proud of them! The bank globally has been increasing its commitment financially as well - but my question is whether the new knowledge economy has the same level of commitment as the traditional providers of services? Will they be prepared to put some of their profits into the same causes? There's not much sign of that yet - and neither are they subjected to abuse and criticism seemingly reserved for the “traditional”.
It's all very well for the urban protesters to harangue and criticise business for being profitable. But there has to be level of rational thinking here. Shouting slogans and being disruptive generally makes newspaper headlines, which they all love, but do the organisations not also deserve some credit - at least those that do make and honour commitments?
Bringing attention to the plight of the world is perfectly legitimate. I am totally on the side of the people who care. Equally I support their genuine efforts, by getting involved myself both physically and financially but someone is going to have to pick up the bills at the end of the day.
It is already late in the day to make changes in thought, understanding, and behaviour - so don't make it any later; start now. Remember though that everything worth doing has a cost attached so give credit where it is due to those that can pay, and this is not just a role for the few - everyone should contribute be they old established institutions or the knowledge economy - although do not expect miracles overnight.
The world is worth saving; if not for you, at least for future generations, and when you are older what will your answer be to your grandchildren who stand - maybe accusingly - in front of you asking "... and what did you do to help save our planet grandad?"
Comments